April 1, 2008

With all this trouble Barack Obama has been having with his connection or seeming connection to religion that either is or seems extremist, wouldn't this be a good time to remind folks that John McCain's religion is the most mild-mannered Christianity: Episcopalian?

But we can't just get in people's faces proclaiming the man's Episcopalianism. We need a way to say it absolutely clearly — kind of without even saying it at all....

Aha!

That's a frame from John McCain's new ad. In other ways, the ad distinguishes John McCain's religion from Obama's. You never hear religion spoken of directly. The theme is "heroes" — and at first you think John McCain is going to be called a hero, but that's for you to think, not for them to say. We hear about a hero teacher who influenced John McCain:

For John McCain, one of his heroes was in the front of his high school classroom.

William B. Ravenel was that hero.

He was the English teacher and football coach who inspired students to live the honor code.

"I shall not lie

I shall not cheat

I shall not steal

And I shall turn in the student who does."

The teacher who believed in exoneration and redemption.

When one of John McCain's classmates violated the rules and admitted to the infraction.

It was John McCain who declared that forgiveness was the best remedy.

Mr. Ravenel was the teacher who helped John McCain understand honor and redemption.

Here's a fuller explanation of that honor code story, in McCain's own words:

In the fall of my senior year, a member of the junior varsity football team had broken training and faced expulsion from the team. Mr. Ravenel called a team meeting during which players argued that the accused be dropped from the team and referred to the honor council. I didn't think that was fair. Since the student in question had, unlike the rest of us, chosen at the start of the year not to sign a pledge promising to abide by the training rules faithfully, I argued in favor of a less severe punishment.

Most of my teammates wanted to hang the guy. But I argued that since he had not been caught breaking training but instead had confessed the offense and expressed his remorse freely, his behavior was no less honorable than that of a student who signed the pledge and adhered to its provisions. My defense swayed the people in the room, about twenty or thirty guys. Mr. Ravenel closed the discussion by voicing support for my judgment.

After the meeting broke up, Mr. Ravenel approached me and shook my hand. With relief evident in his voice, he told me we had done the right thing, and thanked me for my efforts. He allowed that before the meeting he had been anxious about its outcome. He had hoped the matter would be resolved as it had been, but was uncertain it would. Still, he had not wanted to be the one who argued for exoneration; he wanted the decision to be ours and not his. He said he was proud of me. That was very important to me.

Whether you know the whole story or not, the ad sends the message that John McCain values forgiveness — Christian love and forgiveness. Think how deeply that contrasts to what we've been hearing lately from Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright.

The new McCain ad does many things, but one thing it does is engage subtly and forcefully in the debate over religious values.

I also thought it was a none-too-subtle reminder that Sen. Obama has admitted to using cocaine and marijuana. Not that I care, but I guess a lot of voters do.

Bonus question: Don't Americans hate to elect preppies? George W. Bush lost his first election because his opponent portrayed him as an out-of-touch Yalie. Playing the "dumb cowboy" is the secret to his electoral success after that.

Double Bonus Question: The ad also emphasizes that McCain was supposed to narc on his fellow classmates. Is that really what his campaign wants us to think about? That "honor" really means betraying your friends, and every time McCain or his campaign uses that word, we think about a high school geek tattling to his teacher?

In answer to your last question, I thought there might be some connection to McCain's maverick role in Washington. The "friends" politicians have are other politicians and various insiders. Don't we want a politician who didn't cater to and cover up for friends like these?

The latter group is embroiled in a brouhaha regarding ordination of homosexual clergy.

Episcopalians are always embroiled in a brouhaha, whether it's the ordination of women, the ordination of gays, the adoption of a new book of common prayer, the Church is always doing something to piss off the traditionalists. That's part of the charm of Episcopalianism. That's also why the Anglican Church keeps getting adherents.

The story is an excerpt from McCain's book, faith of My Fathers. These stories about his time in high school and at the Naval Academy are just set ups of course to his time as a POW.

Reading about his POW experience is an experience in itself. To be able to face such trials and tribulations all to prevent the North Vietnamese from delivering him as a propaganda victory onto the soul of America takes incredible character and love of ones country.

I am now reading the Obama book (Dreams of My Father), it is also a good story, but it's more popular culture than an epic story of struggle.

"I would think that the Quakers are milder even than the Episcopalians."

As a practicing Quaker, I'd have to say it depends on what you mean by "milder." If by "milder" you mean "undogmatic," then yes. But Quakers have a history of idealism and speaking truth to power that is disproportionate to their numbers, and which compares favorably to Catholics and Episcopalians and other denominations. Episcopalians, unlike Quakers, historically did not do or say things likely to provoke persecution of their sect.

I gather than Ann is using "Episcopalian" here more as a reference to a frame of mind, given that McCain has attended a Baptist church for so many years. People tend to think of "Episcopalian" as highest of high-WASP, where theology takes a back seat to the social club aspect of church-going. Above all, not too much enthusiasm! The high-WASP element may still call themselves Episcopalian but they tend not to be in the pews on Sunday morning. From my admittedly not-very-scientific observations of that scene, and contrary to the image that "Episcopalian" calls to mind, the most faithful church-attenders at Episcopalian services are African-Americans, at least in the urban North. (I suspect things are different in the South, and perhaps the Northern suburbs too, but don't know.) And the most conservative Episcopalian churches (e.g. in Virginia) are abandoning their ties with the American bishops and signing on with Anglican bishops in Africa -- it's issues like gay clergy/gay marriage and the like that are creating the schism.

Oh, those McCainiacs are subtle; the Obamians have no idea what they're in for.

What's the message? You can be a member of a team but exempt from the rules that bind all the other members of the team because you didn't sign the pledge that they signed? That's supposed to show that McCain is tolerant? Soft headed is more like it. Come, be part of my administration, no need to sign a loyalty oath, leak to your hearts content. Great formula for an effective executive.

Yes, I would grant that Quakers violate their principles when they take on the odious role of "politician." Or of general, like the so-called "Fighting Quaker," Gen. Smedley Butler, who was in his time the most highly-decorated Marine in U.S. history. But then again, Google and check out Smedley's confessional essay "War is a Racket," which has as much relevance for today as when it was written. Evidently, the truth just had to come out of Smedley.

"Then again, considering that the Iraqis did a better job of killing each other than we did, I'd say they need to do a bit of inner reflection on themselves."

That is true, and that's why revolutions, and the moral conditions for revolutions, need to primarily come from the people themselves concerned. Motivations for externally-imposed revolutions are generally not what the apologists of empire say they are, and from bad intentions come bad results, as we now are seeing.

As far as it being McCain's war, I'd point to his professed embracing of the idea that "we" might be in Iraq for the next hundred or ten thousand years.

As the Episcopal denomination has swung to the left (and lost members), McCain hedged his bets 15 years ago by going with the Baptists who are growing in numbers and who are more likely to be Southern and Republican.

Not so different, really, from Sen. Obama's decision 17 years ago to attend his Chicago megachurch.

the burden that leftists like John K. have for supporting Saddam Hussein who put to death a million of his own people.

Followers of that logic will easily see that the rightwing bear an even greater burden for supporting Kim Jong Il, who starves millions of his own citizens by diverting international aid funds to nuclear weapons development. Unfortunately for the North Koreans, their country contains neither Muslims nor oil.

As far as it being McCain's war, I'd point to his professed embracing of the idea that "we" might be in Iraq for the next hundred or ten thousand years.

Well then you're either ignorant of what he really said or are being disingenuous. His statement was that he foresaw a US presence in Iraq along the same lines as Germany or Japan, two counties we have 'occupied' for the better part of 60 years since the end of WW2.

McCain hedged his bets 15 years ago by going with the Baptists who are growing in numbers and who are more likely to be Southern and Republican.

Not so different, really, from Sen. Obama's decision 17 years ago to attend his Chicago megachurch.

Yes, McCain's church is also rooted in racism. McCain's pastor Dan Yeary is a Southern Baptist, and his church was built on the belief that God wanted blacks to be slaved:

In 1844, the national Baptist General Convention for Foreign Missions refused to license slaveowning missionaries. One year later, that refusal led to the split between the northern and southern Baptists. The southern Baptists were absolutely convinced that the Bible taught that God had divinely sanctioned slavery. As early as 1823, Richard Furman, a leader of the South Carolina Baptist Convention, a slaveholder, and for whom Furman University is named, stated in a famous address to the Governor of South Carolina, "The right of holding slaves is clearly established by the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." [See Exposition of The Views of the Baptists, Relative To The Coloured Population In The United States]. The next year, in 1845, those firmly convicted defenders of slavery formed their own separate Baptist denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention.

I would much rather have McCain's religion of INTEGRITY than BHO's religion of hate and victimhood or Hillary's religion of entitlement.

To those who think 'McChimpBushit(l)er as a description is clever or cute, I can only say, keep feeding the Iranian tiger. McCain takes the longview instead of the "Strawberry Fields Forever" dreams/religion of perpetual youth and irresponsibility.

McCain is focused integrity as opposed to those who speak selfishly in self-serving tongues.

You may be unfamiliar with the denomination but in U.S. military base chapels across the world you have a choice of services, Catholic (9:00 AM Sunday) or Protestant (10:30 AM Sunday).

I was raised Military Protestant and the type of service varied greatly based on the pastor. We had a Presbyterian rotate out to be replaced by a Southern Baptist. Big change in style from one weekend to the next. Every service ended in the Navy Hymn but that was the only similarity.

As with most southern universities, Furman was founded as a theological school. They are no longer affiliated with the Baptists (separated about 20 years ago) and is my son's alma mater. Just want the readers to not infer any of the negativity implied by the discussion of its roots. I feel my money was very well spent. The students are happy and studious, the campus one of the most beautiful in America. There are no easy classes and the graduates have a very high level of attending post grad programs of every sort.

Two positive aspects of their education are the requirements for a course in religion and one in physical education. A better understanding of religion helps one wade through these questions with a more open and understanding mind.

McCain is showing an understanding of personal accountability, and showing that forgiveness is a treasured thing. However, Forgiveness doesn't obviate punishment.

I also thought it was a none-too-subtle reminder that Sen. Obama has admitted to using cocaine and marijuana. Not that I care, but I guess a lot of voters do.

Bonus question: don't Americans hate to elect preppies? George W. Bush lost his first election because his opponent portrayed him as an out-of-touch Yalie. Playing the "dumb cowboy" is the secret to his electoral success after that.

Double Bonus Question: The ad also emphasizes that McCain was supposed to narc on his fellow classmates. Is that really what his campaign wants us to think about? That "honor" really means betraying your friends, and every time McCain or his campaign uses that word, we think about a high school geek tattling to his teacher?

My Father converted from Catholicism to the Episcopalian faith as a matter of due diligence when he came to this country--there was already rampant hatred for Irish immigrants and for Catholics in the 1920s and he wasn't about to put up with that crap. He even bleached his dark hair, making it red, and he spoke with a kind of German accent until someone reminded him that, in the aftermath of World War I, it was not quite kosher to self-identify as German in this country. So he affected the mannerisms of a Scot and prospered in business.

Who cares what religion McCain is? He's a Republican. At least, we think he is--I would have preferred Rudy Guiliani to McCain, as I'm sure everyone else who didn't get a chance to vote in January would have preferred. At least Rudy wouldn't put up with being told what to do by any Pope.

Yes, I'll be the first to admit that alas Quakerism isn't what it used to be in the days of William Penn or of John Woolman. Most troubling of all is that many or even most modern day Quakers seem to be liberals/statists, symptomatic of a country in which most everybody is either a liberal/statist or a conservative/statist.

But the principles of Quakerism are still as sound as they were in its inception, its historical stand against slavery still admirable and inspirational, and Quakers along with Mennonites and other so-called "peace churces" continue to stand as firmly against war as they ever did.

The purpose of honor codes, either the military or those at most of our older, better universities requires "narcking" to the same level as honesty. They give unproctored exams, often allowing students to bring them back to their rooms to take them more comfortably. Obvioiusly, you have a problem with punishing wrongdoers.

I'm a big fan of honor codes. We had one at my college, and it virtually eliminated cheating. I'm pretty sure there was never a reported or suspected case of cheating in any class I took as an undergrad.

One thing you have to do for an honor code to work is to put people on their honor. We had a big ceremony where all the freshmen signed the honor code, and the first test of the year was timed, closed-book -- and take home. It's a really liberating experience to bomb a test when the answers are in a closed book three feet away.

One thing that is very important in honor codes is the concept of self-reporting. Even when a professor suspected something was amiss, he would typically confront the student and suggest that the student report himself, rather than going directly to the Honor Board. Self reporting constituted grounds for leniency, even according to the written rules. The point is that an Honor Code isn't adversarial justice, it's participatory. You *want* to adhere to the Honor Code, you recognize that breaking the code is bad. By turning yourself in, you are *regaining* your honor.

By my lights, the incident reflects well on McCain regarding the honor code. He recognized that the other student had not signed the pledge -- had not put himself on his honor. He recognized the importance of turning oneself in, and carried the point in the discussion of punishment.

Fortunately, for the South Koreans their country contains the US military, who has been there for fifty years and might be there for another fifty or hundred or more.

I concede that the example of Korea argues against a US pullout in Iraq until Iraq can defend itself from foreign invasion:

1. Although the Allies had intended for there to be a unified Korea after World War II, under a trusteeship, the U.S. was ill-prepared to occupy Korea after Japan's surrender, and conceded half the country to the Soviets.

2. Both U.S. and Soviet occupation forces pulled out by 1949.

3. The Soviet-trained and supplied North Korean Army almost immediately invaded South Korea.

The value of forgiveness is something tha is lost on many Christians today, especially ministers, preachers, and priests. They forget or ignore the simple message that if God, in all his power and majesty can forgive, man can forgive to.

Except them Quakers. Who really are amazing, though sadly they haven't really produced a faithful public figure in a while. I think they are going to find a new resurgence soon as there are a number of very passionate, very dedicated young Friends doing very interest work.

I am struck by the parallels between the use of religion for political purposes by Islam and Black radicals. At what point does it become painfully obvious that their religion is just a cover for activist ends? And when will people wake up to the fact that "Rev." and "Ayotollah" can both be used as a path to political power - and have been?

Methodists are the mildest of all. How does a Methodist get into heaven? By showing up with a covered dish.

I went to a Lutheran funeral once. It was for a guy who owned a gymnastics studio with lots of children students. About forty kids were seated in the front where the preacher, or whatever they're called, harangued the students mercilessly making them think their beloved gym teacher was certainly going to hell for some unstated thing about his lifestyle. It was a silent ride to the reception until finally I said, "Worst funeral ever." The car exploded. Everyone was thoroughly angered by the stark meanness of the whole thing. By the time we got to the reception and all the people were together again, it was clear everybody had the same reaction. His parents left the church after that episode.

I strongly suspect that the Citadel's honor code requires people to turn in suspected cases of cheating, as it's a common feature of most such codes. It goes under "nor tolerate those who do."

Again, it's a participatory code, not adversarial. It's designed to produce a high trust environment. _Not_ turning in cheaters undermines that trust, so it would be against any well designed code. In practice, if you suggested cheating, you would probably go to the person you suspected and give them a chance to turn themselves in first.

Quaker Humor:A particular law professor was known to have a sour disposition, and one day he barked at his class, "If there are any utter ignoramuses here, please stand up!"

After a long silence, one friend in gray slowly stood up. "I see," said the law professor, "so you admit to being a total ignoramus, then?" "Um, not exactly, Friend," replied the boy, "but I do hate to see thee standing up there by thyself."

Zach:Nope, it doesn't. It requires one to "not tolerate" a liar, cheater or stealer. It does not require one to become a snitch. There's another policy at the Citadel, that of the "improper question" wherein the inquisator cannot go on a fishing expedition, but can only ask questions he knows the answer to. So, if you have a roommate who lies and you know it, you have to confront him to turn himself in. If you are asked by one who knows whether you knew it, then you can be punished. But it's still a long way from being affirmatively obligated to turn in the liars, cheaters and stealers. Essentially, it does not reward the snitch.

I am struck by the parallels between the use of religion for political purposes.....

The other day I was skimming a government report and noticed the name The Honorable Bobby L. Rush, Chairman. I knew that someone with the same name was involved in '60's activism but couldn't recall the context, so naturally I Googled .

Along with interesting background info including his defeat of Obama, the last sentence indicates that he is a pastor.

Well, I'll concede the point, but I maintain that it's the exception that proves the rule. For whatever reason, the Citadel values not snitching -- and the ability to trust classmates not to snitch -- highly. The point is still to maintain a high trust environment, and other organizations could have different emphases.

The "Non-Toleration Clause" is acually fairly well defined. The Military and Air Force Academies' Honor code includes "or tolerate those who do" while the Naval Academy's Honor Code does not.

Cadets at the USMA and USAFA are bound by the code to report a perceived honor violation. Cadets at the Naval Academy have nonreporting as an option if they "counsel the person if the violation is admitted and the appropriate steps are taken to correct the situation."

Defending the honor of your institution and profession does not equal "snitching." If your life was on the line would you trust a fellow officer who you know cheated on that ballistics exam as a Youngster?

I think that the original definition of a snitch was a person who rats out other people that were part of a criminal undertaking. The snitch does so to avoid punishment. The snitch got caught, and then turns in people who did not get caught along with them to avoid paying the price for their crime.

Corrupting the word to mean anyone that tells on anyone else loses the point. There are cultures that refuse to cooperate with the police when the police are trying to find a pedophile that is perping the children of that neighborhood and culture. That is self defeating to say the least!

Nobody likes a rat, but following the honor code is not being a rat. As a psychologist, I am ethically required to confront an impaired colleague and require that they get sober or deal with the issue at hand. If they do not, I am required to report them to the impaired professional committe of my licensing board. This is not snitching unless I was using cocaine with them, got caught, and then ratted on them to save my own ass.

Willard Scott also lived with his old gym teacher who lived to be over 100 years old in Washington DC when he was first starting out as a clown in the early Bozo years. He got off on Depends. That was the beginning of his fascination with old people and hanging around nursing homes. People are funny.

Unfortunately, "we" will never have the chance to ask forgiveness of the thousands of Iraqi civilians McCain's unjustified war has killed.

Why ask forgiveness for Iraqis killed by Iraqis? Who might have killed more if Saddam was kept in power based on the million+ he already killed in two wars and several insurrections.....

As for "Mccain's War", that is a label as accurate as "The Jew's War", "Schumer's War" - even "The BLack Messiah's War" since the 1st thing he did in the Senate was reassure fellow Democrats and wealthy donors that supported the war and young Barry's campaign and selection and Keynote Speaker - that he too might have voted for it if he had access to the briefings they had.

****************"Most famous Quaker in the last 100years: Richard Nixon."

Nixon went to his death believing he had done more for peace than just about any American in their lifetime. That he was true to Quakerism in this.

The facts seem to bear him out:

1. Made substantial contribution to the defeat of the inhuman Japanese war machine with his role in SCAT.

2. A leader in stopping the communist democide from spreading - the greatest slaughterer of humanity next to Islam in history.

3. Swiftly dropped US casualties in Vietnam down to minimal in two years in office. Achieved peace with honor before the Democrat stab in the back triggered the last great communist democide of the 20th Century.

4. Implimented Detente with America's two greatest enemies and dramatically reduced chances of major war.

7. Domestically, he implemented the last phase of the Civil Rights Act with school desegregation, started the EPA, introduced modest affirmative action - abused by liberals. His "silent majority" governing and winding down of Vietnam had led to general societal peace except for the MSM and Old Left out to get him for "persecuting" their bethren, end to race riots, protests.

8. By Israeli accounts, Nixon saved Israel in the 1973 war.

Then they "got" him...his flaws gave the enemies he had since HUAC their opening.

Nixon continues to rise in historians estimation of hi and his enduring accomplishments. He is now thought of as the 2nd or 3rd most "consequential President" of the 20th century. Behind FDR and ahead or behind of LBJ, depending on how LBJs performance on Civil Rights, Vietnam, and The Great Society is viewed as time goes by. And far more a man who worked for peace and societal stability and progess than it's enemy.

Are Quakers proud of him? No, not at the moment, with Watergate still visceral with many older "progressives", but he was bracketed by lesser Presidents and the sleaze and failure of those lesser lights - much concealed by the MSM in a way they didn't with Nixon - is coming to light.

The Quaker says “I can kick the ass of any man in the house”The Shaker says . . .

Then they all turn to the camera and shout:

APRIL FOOLS SUCKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was not a Quaker back then, but I was 2-0 in intramural boxing while a midshipman at the Naval Academy. Incidentally, I was also an Honor Concept representative and later an investigator, meaning I'd sit on the ad hoc committees that "tried" alleged violations and later "prosecute" alleged violators. Back then as I recall the Concept included the clause "or tolerate those who do," which however did not mean you yourself were in violation of the Concept if you did not turn in an alleged violator.

One case I was investigating stands out in my memory. Before the Christmas break the officer in charge of overseeing the administration of the Honor Concept called me into my office and said that my investigation was being subsumed in a larger investigation of the concerned midshipman. He said he couldn't tell me then what the larger investigation was about but that if I wasn't able to figure it out on my own after the Christmas break he probably would be able to tell me then. That was rather enigmatic! But sure enough, returning from Christmas break and getting off the elevator on our floor of Bancroft Hall I saw a newspaper clipping on a bulletin board whose headline read "Man in midshipman uniform robs General after Army-Navy game."

John K, I hope you realize I am only busting on you cause it's April Fools. If you are gonna be a Prod, then Quaker is a good thing to be. You got great oatmeal.

If you ever want to join a real religion where we got saints and you get wine and a free cookie at every service, let me know and I can hook you up. I have a meeting with the Pope when he hits New York in April. We are going for sausage heros and calzones down Columbia St. He may be a Kraut, but his stomach's Italian all the way.

SWBarns: What I'm saying is the Citadel accomplishes the honorable end by requiring people to confront each other before they go to the authorities. Having to confront one who you know is a liar, cheater or stealer is a little more difficult than just turning them in all Eddie Haskellish. It requires personal integrity to get a fellow cadet to do the right thing first before they sully you with knowledge of their wrongdoing. There's a slight, but important difference, in the way the Citadel cadets live their honor code.

Actually, my first conversion was a Dostoevsky-mediated conversion to the Roman Catholic Church at age 18. Then at the Naval Academy I met an English Prof who turned me on to Mel Gibson-style Catholic traditionalism. I finished my undergrad degree at the Catholic University of Dallas (after coming to my senses about the military and resigning from USNA), where I was a big fan of Thomas Aquinas and distanced myself from schismatic Catholic traditionalism in favor of the conservative Legionnaries of Christ and Opus Dei. So I'm very familiar with everything I'm missing by my conversion to Quakerism! I still consider myself Catholic-friendly, however. You guys nail it on contraception and abortion, whereas modern Quakerism (at least the liberal branch) is much more wishy-washy when it comes to sexual morality.

Plus we got lots of really cool saints. St Christopher for travelers. St. Jude for the Democrats. St. Lucy with her eye balls on the plate for people with vision trouble. St. Francis of Assisi for the animals and well for the sissies. And St Patrick the patron saint of drunken Irish girls from Long Island who puke outside pubs every March 17th. It's a surer harbinger of spring than any freakin ground hog.

Actually, on second thought SWBarnes is probably right about the USNA Honor Concept not including "nor tolerate those who do," even at the time I was there. (I would have been Class of '92.) It seemed to me there was an additional clause following "a midshipman does not lie, cheat or steal," but maybe I was just thinking about what I knew about the Honor Code of the USMA and USAFA.

Well, it all depends on who was this team mate. Was it a close friend of McCain's? Was he a rival for a girl? Was he someone that paid McCain to stand up for him? Was he an illegal immigrant? Was he dating McCain's sister? Was he an Episcopalian? Was he the best player on the team, the Achilles without whom the team couldn't win? Was he the waterboy?

The anecdote means just about nothing, or everything, which is the same thing.

According to Wiki, McCain's father was stationed at the Pentagon in 1950. Odd that his parents would send him to a boarding school only a couple of miles away. Perhaps they assumed they'd have to move again before he finished high school.

Trey alludes to this, but Ruth Ann Adams's "no one likes a snitch" mentality is based in a criminal system of ethics.

Convergent evolution, not lineal descent. If you place a high value on in-group loyalty and pairwise bonding, you might prefer to set things up differently than if you valued abstract ideals and building espirit de corps.

John McCain's religion is the most mild-mannered Christianity: Episcopalian.

Hm. On the one hand, I know what you mean, being of that rare breed known as a cradle Episcopalian who remains Episcopalian and active in an Episcopal congregation.

On the other hand, it ain't so mild-mannered anymore, not even in the United States, I'm here to tell you firsthand.

***

Also, picking up from Richard Dolan's comment, the breakaways aren't confined to the south but rather are scattered around the U.S. Many more are in turmoil, in one way or(and) another.

***

Finally, Tony Perkins irritates the heck out of me. Why should he get to define the terms in which people speak about their faith? I can "speak evangelical" with the best of them (for reasons I won't go into), but I'll tell you what, if someone like Perkins were to try to [strike]engage[/strike] challenge me with regard to my faith he way he does with anyone whose style he doesn't prefer, I'd go all Episcopalian-circa-1955 in a heartbeat, believe you me. Maybe Perkins is the one who needs to become "religiously multilingual." You know, the whole Body of Christ thing.

Personally, I'm sick to frickin' death of religion, period. It has no place in a campaign and is certainly no where NEAR the importance of questions like Iraq, energy dependence, immigration ~ good Lord, any of a multitude of issues affecting us ALL. Not Baptists, Liberation Theorists, Jews, Venusians, Marians, Martians, Islamo fascists or Catholic Lite (Episcopal for the uninitiated ~ all of the fun and none of the guilt.). God, compel Thy believers to give it a rest if Thou haveth time, forsooth. This entire Presidential competition has gotten wrapped around the axle so many times with Huckabee's preening Miracle Max "I'm more devout", Romney's "It's not a cult ~ I LOVE JEsus just like YOU do! Maybe more!", Obama's shrieking, spiteful eel of a shaman...ad NAUSEUM.

Don't you dare wave that book at me and pretend your devotion makes you devout, and that your worship makes you both wise and worthy. I say get OFF the God train, candidates! Show me something substantial that helps ALL Americans regardless of their religious persuasions, or lack there of. As I told a jeweler in N.C. who introduced himself as a "Christian" and assured me his was a "Christian" business: "I could care less. Are you an honest man and can you fix my ring? That's all I need to know."

WOW! ! ! That photo in the basketball uniform should have read 'Krypton' rather than Episcopalian. The student (McCain I take it) looks much like the high school age Clark Kent in the series 'Smallville'.

When I was a kid, I wanted to be able to get away with breaking the rules, and I thought it was bad for anyone to tattle on me. When I had kids, I realized that my rules are for my child's own good, and I needed to know if any of my rules were broken, so I could straighten things out with monitoring, and possibly punishment.

As a junior employee when I was younger, I did not want my boss to find out if I made a mistake, or failed to do something that needed to be done. Now that I have supervisorial responsibility, I need to know if my employees fail in their responsibilities. If I don't make sure that things are done right in the company, we could lose customers, and have to let people go.

Generally, the true and correct thing is for the responsible authority figure to be told about any wrongdoing. Anyone who reports wrongdoing is on the side of the good. Anyone who considers "snitching" to be wrong, is childish and irresponsible.

I think they went with "snitching" because it was in the honor code and they wanted to be truthful (not make up a fake story that could later be proven to be a lie - sound familiar?).

For me, the implication is "intervention is preferable to disassociation": One should do or say something rather than merely ignore the offense. The obvious corollary: Obama did neither - and either is preferable to doing nothing.

I'm not sure I agree with the premise - I'm a "live and let live" person so I tend to prefer disassociation over people telling me what to do.

Job said: "Your use of the phrase 'speaking truth to power,' without a hint of irony, gives me the creeps."

Not sure why. The phrase is rather hackneyed and come to think of it I'm not particularly fond of it. Better to say of a person or group that they are no "respecter of persons," or simply that they are willing to denounce evil (e.g. the "oppressor's wrong" or the "insolence of office") despite personal risk, and despite the fact that popular opinion may be against them. "Speaking truth to power" admittedly calls to mind the image of a protestor interrupting somebody's speech by shouting slogans, which is as likely to be a case of casting ego before swine as it is of casting pearls. But aside from this trivial stylistic objection I'm not sure exactly what your real beef is, or where you see the "irony" . . . ?